CATEGORIES
- NYC COVERAGE
- WEB STARTUPS
- WEB NEWS
- CONFERENCES
- WEB TECH JOBS
- VENTURE CAPITAL
- MICROSOFT
- INTERVIEWS
- ADVERTISING
- VIDEO
- ALL TOPICS
- ALL COMPANIES
CONTRIBUTORS
- ADRIAN CHAN
- ALICIA NAVARRO
- ALLEN STERN
- CORSIN CAMICHEL
- DRAMA 2.0
- DARREN HERMAN
- HANK WILLIAMS
- MARK DAVIS
- RICK TUROCZY
- SANFORD DICKERT
- SHANNON CLARK
- Comment on YouTube Down by DVS01
- Comment on Twitter COO Costolo: Advertising Coming To Twitter Soon by Satoshi Nakajima
- Comment on Twitter COO Costolo: Advertising Coming To Twitter Soon by OMG Stop the Web! Twitter is gonna run ads ? and Scoble says you?ll love it
- Comment on What?s Up With Yahoo Mail Delivery? by MJ
Is this really “Web 2.0 Television”?
When I say to you "Web 2.0 Television", what comes to mind? Is it Joost, PodTech, Splashcast, or even Justine? Somehow I landed last night on a site called "Web 2.0 Television". This is the furthest thing from a Web 2.0 TV network I would have ever expected.
Loading the home page you see two women who want you to play the video. The featured video appears to be some party for the launch of Web 2.0 Television in the southwest region of the U.S. They talk to someone from thousandlist.com and then the balance of the video looks like a wanna-be porn tape. Overall the videos across the site appear to be similar to the local channels on a hotel television.
Each city has a 2.0 version. There is no ability to embed a video and except for comments on the page, there is nothing that makes me believe this is Web 2.0. Where is video commenting like Viddler has? Where is tagging? No Ajax?
I can only guess the founders were trying to think of a name for this city tv network and realized Web 2.0 was hot and decided to go with it. Lame. The truth is that if they had a better local name and design, it might not be such a bad web site.
Note: Alexa says they are the 62nd most popular web site in Kenya!
When the internet came along we had a ton of badly designed web sites because everyone had their own interpretation of what a web page should be. Now we know different. It’s disappointing that you would make fun at this site instead of focusing on the real story which is the fact that there are going to be A LOT of these types of sites created for niche audiences and web 2.0 or 3.0 or whatever number you want to call it is only people’s attempts to define the problem: distribution.
How many of these sites will tip without solid distribution to eyeballs? Few to none. When you redefine TV you redefine the fundamental problem of why TV has flourished: massive ubiquitous distribution – then content quality. Pay attention, soon, everyone is going to get blipd!
web 2.0 tv would solve the family arguments over who wants to watch what on TV by allowing the family members to digg what they want to want. The program with the highest diggs gets shown :p
Oh that would be fun! But Mommy I don't want to watch Dr Phil, wiggles got more diggs!
That would be an awesome cartoon.